Forum Help

If you want to ask about changing your username, have login problems, have password problems or a technical issue please email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com

Posting help:

If you want to ask why a word can't be typed, your signature's been changed, or a post has been deleted see the Forum Rules. If you don't find the answer you can ask forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com though due to volumes we can't guarantee replies.

Login to MSE Forum

Join the MSE Forum

Skimlinks adds tracking to some, primarily retailers' links, to show they come from this forum. For some retailers, instead of using Skimlinks to turn the link into a tracked link, we use affiliated links set up through other third parties. Then if it generates revenue from that, this site is paid. The links don't change the content, or what you see or track individual data ? but they do help fund this free forum. So we hope you choose to switch it on. See the full Skimlinks factsheet for more.

Hello, first i have read through the newbie thread and have missed the 26 day appeal for the NtD. There was no appeal as the initial NtD had a single mistake on the vehicle registration. The NtD was issued 10/12/16. The NtK was dated for the 10/01/17 but received 14/01/17. The NtK also now has the correct vehicle Registration as well as the statement that "This parking charge notice supersedes <previous reference> which has been reissued." I would like to know what options i have.

Just send the usual template appeal (from the NEWBIES sticky thread) online now and add that the keeper cannot be held liable because the details on the NTK do not repeat the information in the NTD. POFA Schedule 4 has not been complied with and if the NTK does 'supersede' the windscreen PCN then it fails on all counts as it is too late to comply with paragraph 9 as well.

I challenge this 'Parking Charge Notice' as Keeper of the Vehicle for the reasons outlined below, and therefore expect this Parking Charge Notice to be cancelled forthwith.

1) The original Parking Charge Notice numbered <Old PCN>presented as Notice To Driver, has a registration number given which does not match any vehicle for which I am the Registered Keeper. This was therefore not compliant with the British Parking Association's (BPA) Code of Practice, and further fails the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, schedule 4., which therefore nullifies the Parking Charge Notice as it was issued with an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number (VRN). Therefore the Notice to Driver was NOT given correctly.
2) Your Notice to Keeper, dated 10th January 2017, and referenced as Parking Charge Notice numbered <New PCN>, fails schedule 4 of PoFA as it does not accurately repeat the (incorrect) information given on the original Notice to Driver (referenced as Parking Charge Notice number <Old PCN>).
3) The re-issued Parking Charge Notice number <New PCN> further fails paragraph 9 sub-paragraph (5) of PoFA (2012) which states "The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended." due to its date of issue being 31 days after that on which the specified parking permit of the original alleged infraction given in Parking Charge Notice <OldPCN>expired (10th December 2016). Without a valid Notice To Driver, any Notice to Keeper would have to have been served by day 14 to be PoFA 2012 compliant. You have failed in this regard, and I am merely the registered keeper so am not liable.
These points and others will be raised with POPLA should you not accept this appeal, and you will be expected to provide a full breakdown of your alleged loss, and your full unredacted contract with the actual landowner. However, your case is fatally flawed, by the lack of a Notice to Driver which cannot be re-issued retrospectively to the correct VRN. I have the original as proof for POPLA and would also argue you had no reasonable cause to obtain my data whatsoever, so I will be sending a complaint to the DVLA about your pursuit of a flawed PCN.
Should you obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause (e.g. if you do not fully comply with the BPA Code of Practice in terms of signage at this site, for example) please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal in your contract, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach.
Further, I understand you do not own the car park and you have given me no information about your policy with the landowner or on site businesses, to cancel such a charge. So please supply that policy as required under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

For the avoidance of doubt, I do not give you consent to process data from the DVLA relating to this vehicle, whether you have already obtained it or not.
Please issue your cancellation within 35 days of this letter, or supply a POPLA
code if you accept the above terms.
I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

umm , got a parkwatch / defence systems case here , the NTK and NTD are blatently different , as in the notice to driver states payment to defence systems LTD trading as Parkwatch <full stop> but the NTK says to pay parkwatch LTD

defence systems are registered as a ATA , and with a company number , Parkwatch LTD are not in an ATA and are registered as a different company (different number)

now in the words of the BPA

Good Afternoon,

Thank you for your email and my apologies about the delay in our response.

The payment will go to Parkwatch which is a trading name for Defence Systems Limited. The notice advises Parkwatch Ltd in error however we would still consider the notice to be valid.

Just a quick update.
I have today received a reply from my appeals letter and I'm pleased to say that they have cancelled the parking charge, with the letter I composed from this page
I'd like to thank everyone that assisted and helped me through this.
Thank you so much everyone without all your help and guidance I most certainly wouldn't have got this charge cancelled.
Thank you.

I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from Parking Ticketing Limited. I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

1) The signage was inadequate so there was no valid contract formed.
2) The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability.
3) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers.
4) No genuine pre-estimate of loss

1) Unreasonable and unfair terms – no contract agreed to pay £100. Inadequate signage
The only notices are up on walls, away from the view in the site parking area, which is not a 'sign' nor does it communicate full contractual terms & conditions. At the time of the contravention no signage was clearly visible by the vehicle. Any photos supplied by Parking Ticketing Limited to POPLA will no doubt show the signage in daylight or with the misleading aid of a close up camera with an extremely bright flash and the angle may well not show how high the sign is nor the fact the Parking Ticketing Limited signs are one of many pieces of information in the clutter of this site parking (which was under construction and scaffolding at the time of contravention). As such, I require UK Parking Control Limited to state the height of each sign in their response.

Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the British Parking Association’s (BPA) Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. Nothing about this Operator's onerous inflated 'parking charges' was sufficiently prominent and it is clear that the requirements for forming a contract (i.e. consideration flowing between the two parties, offer, acceptance and fairness and transparency of terms offered in good faith) were not satisfied.

2) The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability
The original Parking Charge Notice numbered xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx presented as Notice To Driver, has a registration number given which does not match any vehicle for which I am the Registered Keeper. This was therefore not compliant with the British Parking Association's (BPA) Code of Practice, and further fails the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, schedule 4., which therefore nullifies the Parking Charge Notice as it was issued with an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number (VRN).
Therefore the Notice to Driver was NOT given correctly.
The Notice to Keeper, dated 10th January 2017, and referenced as Parking Charge Notice numbered xxxxxxxxxxxxx, fails schedule 4 of PoFA as it does not accurately repeat the (incorrect) information given on the original Notice to Driver (referenced as Parking Charge Notice number xxxxxxxxxxxxxx).
The re-issued Parking Charge Notice number xxxxxxxxxxxxxx further fails paragraph 9 sub-paragraph (5) of PoFA (2012) which states "The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended." due to its date of issue being 31 days after that on which the specified parking permit of the original alleged infraction given in Parking Charge Notice xxxxxxxxxxxxxx expired (10th December 2016). Without a valid Notice To Driver, any Notice to Keeper would have to have been served by day 14 to be PoFA 2012 compliant. UKPC have failed in this regard, and I am merely the registered keeper so am not liable.

Therefore, Parking Ticketing Limited has not met the keeper liability requirements and, as a result, keeper liability does not apply. As the keeper of the vehicle I decline, as is my right, to provide the name of the driver(s) at the time. As Parking Ticketing Limited have neither named the driver(s) nor provided any evidence as to who the driver(s) were, I submit I am not liable to any charge.

3) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
I believe that this Operator has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title UK Parking Control Limited must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice.

I therefore put Parking Ticketing Limited to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between Parking Ticketing Limited and the landowner, not just another agent or retailer or other non-landholder, because it will still not be clear that the landowner has authorised the necessary rights to Parking Ticketing Limited.

4) No genuine pre-estimate of loss
The charge of £100 is punitive and unreasonable, contravening the BPA Code of Practice section 19. UK Parking Control Limited must therefore be required to explain their 'charge' by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss in this particular site parking for this alleged contravention. However, with or without any 'breach', the cost of parking enforcement would still have been the same and there was no loss or damage caused so UK Parking Control Limited have no cause of action to pursue this charge. The fact that the recommended maximum level in section 19.5 (“we would not expect this amount to be more than £100”) has not been exceeded merely means that the operator does not have to justify the amount in advance. In no way does it absolve the operator of their responsibility to base the figure on a genuine pre-estimate of loss, or to comply with section 19.6 which states that the charge “cannot be punitive or unreasonable”.

UK Parking Control Limited cannot include their operational tax-deductible business running costs - for example, costs of signage, staffing and dealing later with the appeals, or hefty write-off costs. This would not represent a loss resulting from a breach of the alleged parking contract and in any case I believe Parking Ticketing Limited are likely to be paid by their client - so any such payment income must be balanced within the breakdown UK Parking Control Limited supply and must be shown in the contract.
This concludes my POPLA appeal.

I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from UK Parking Control Limited. I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

1) The signage was inadequate so there was no valid contract formed.
2) The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability.
3) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers.
4) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

1) Unreasonable and unfair terms – no contract agreed to pay £100. Inadequate signage
The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

imgur.com/a/AkMCN

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''

''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

2) The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - No Keeper Liability
The original Parking Charge Notice numbered xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx presented as Notice To Driver, has a registration number given which does not match any vehicle for which I am the Registered Keeper. This was therefore not compliant with the British Parking Association's (BPA) Code of Practice, and further fails the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, schedule 4., which therefore nullifies the Parking Charge Notice as it was issued with an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number (VRN).
Therefore the Notice to Driver was NOT given correctly.
The Notice to Keeper, dated 10th January 2017, and referenced as Parking Charge Notice numbered xxxxxxxxxxxxx, fails schedule 4 of PoFA as it does not accurately repeat the (incorrect) information given on the original Notice to Driver (referenced as Parking Charge Notice number xxxxxxxxxxxxxx).
The re-issued Parking Charge Notice number xxxxxxxxxxxxxx further fails paragraph 9 sub-paragraph (5) of PoFA (2012) which states "The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended." due to its date of issue being 31 days after that on which the specified parking permit of the original alleged infraction given in Parking Charge Notice xxxxxxxxxxxxxx expired (10th December 2016). Without a valid Notice To Driver, any Notice to Keeper would have to have been served by day 14 to be PoFA 2012 compliant. UKPC have failed in this regard, and I am merely the registered keeper so am not liable.

Therefore, UK Parking Control Limited has not met the keeper liability requirements and, as a result, keeper liability does not apply. As the keeper of the vehicle I decline, as is my right, to provide the name of the driver(s) at the time. As UK Parking Control Limited have neither named the driver(s) nor provided any evidence as to who the driver(s) were, I submit I am not liable to any charge.

3) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
I believe that this Operator has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title UK Parking Control Limited must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice.

I therefore put UK Parking Control Limited to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between UK Parking Control Limited and the landowner, not just another agent or retailer or other non-landholder, because it will still not be clear that the landowner has authorised the necessary rights to UK Parking Control Limited.

4) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from UK Parking Control Limited. I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

1) The signage was inadequate so there was no valid contract formed.
2) The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability.
3) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers.
4) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

1) Unreasonable and unfair terms – no contract agreed to pay £100. Inadequate signage
The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

imgur.com/a/AkMCN

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''

''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

2) The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - No Keeper Liability
The original Parking Charge Notice numbered xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx presented as Notice To Driver, has a registration number given which does not match any vehicle for which I am the Registered Keeper. This was therefore not compliant with the British Parking Association's (BPA) Code of Practice, and further fails the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, schedule 4., which therefore nullifies the Parking Charge Notice as it was issued with an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number (VRN).
Therefore the Notice to Driver was NOT given correctly.
The Notice to Keeper, dated 10th January 2017, and referenced as Parking Charge Notice numbered xxxxxxxxxxxxx, fails schedule 4 of PoFA as it does not accurately repeat the (incorrect) information given on the original Notice to Driver (referenced as Parking Charge Notice number xxxxxxxxxxxxxx).
The re-issued Parking Charge Notice number xxxxxxxxxxxxxx further fails paragraph 9 sub-paragraph (5) of PoFA (2012) which states "The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended." due to its date of issue being 31 days after that on which the specified parking permit of the original alleged infraction given in Parking Charge Notice xxxxxxxxxxxxxx expired (10th December 2016). Without a valid Notice To Driver, any Notice to Keeper would have to have been served by day 14 to be PoFA 2012 compliant. UKPC have failed in this regard, and I am merely the registered keeper so am not liable.

Therefore, UK Parking Control Limited has not met the keeper liability requirements and, as a result, keeper liability does not apply. As the keeper of the vehicle I decline, as is my right, to provide the name of the driver(s) at the time. As UK Parking Control Limited have neither named the driver(s) nor provided any evidence as to who the driver(s) were, I submit I am not liable to any charge.

3) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

4) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

How this site works

We think it's important you understand the strengths and limitations of the site. We're a journalistic website and aim to provide the best MoneySaving guides, tips, tools and techniques, but can't guarantee to be perfect, so do note you use the information at your own risk and we can't accept liability if things go wrong.

This info does not constitute financial advice, always do your own research on top to ensure it's right for your specific circumstances and remember we focus on rates not service.

Do note, while we always aim to give you accurate product info at the point of publication, unfortunately price and terms of products and deals can always be changed by the provider afterwards, so double check first.

We don't as a general policy investigate the solvency of companies mentioned (how likely they are to go bust), but there is a risk any company can struggle and it's rarely made public until it's too late (see the Section 75 guide for protection tips).

We often link to other websites, but we can't be responsible for their content.

Always remember anyone can post on the MSE forums, so it can be very different from our opinion.

MoneySavingExpert.com is part of the MoneySupermarket Group, but is entirely editorially independent. Its stance of putting consumers first is protected and enshrined in the legally-binding MSE Editorial Code.